John 1 is correctly interpreted as 'the Word was God'. The indefinite article 'a' is not to be assumed as part of the English translation, as in 'the Word was a God'. This is grammatically incorrect. Firstly, the Greeks do not use indefinite articles, but they have a suffix to indicate them, which is not used in the passage. Second, 'the Word was God' is written the same exact way as 'the Word was with God'. To accomodate the JW translation, the passage would have to also read 'the Word was with a God'.

I'm not a JW, but what you say here is almost all inaccurate. There is no suffix to indicate the indefinite article. The indefinite article in Greek is chosen at times just because there is no definite article given. Noun endings indicate case (nominative, genitive, accusative, dative), not the presence of an indefinite article.

I only took one year of Greek, but I have read numerous analyses of John 1:1 by Greek scholars of all persuasions. "The Word was a god" is not the preferred translation, but neither is "The Word was God." In normal situations, the JW translation would be correct. However, the format of those words, say Protestant scholars, indicates that the word "God" is being used similar to an adjective so that "The Word was divine" would be the best translation. "The Word was God" is simply inaccurate, as the absence of a definite article really does suggest that "a god" ought to be used in most situations.

Again, that's from Protestant scholars and from my first year Greek teacher, who was an Assembly of God pastor.

Further, I just looked at a copy of the Textus Receptus (the text on which the KJV and NKJV is based) and it has pros ton theon. "ton" is the accusative form of the definite article. In other words, it does say "with the God" not just "with God." Same with Jn 1:2.

i can't actually make a whole lot of sense out of what john says. some say "the word" is refering to god's wisdom.

In context of history, this really isn't difficult. John obviously uses a lot of gnostic terminology in John 1. Some say that's because it was originally a gnostic Gospel, but I'd be prone to agreeing with Irenaeus that it was purposely written to refute gnosticism and say that Light, Word, Man, Christ, Life, etc. are not separate "aeons," but Jesus is all those things.

Either way, he is clearly using typical Greek terminology. The Gospel was late, and it was written in Greek.

The Word, then, is tied to thought, reason, and mind. John is calling Christ the Word, and everyone who used that Gospel for the next three centuries tied "the Word" to Wisdom in Proverbs 8 (as you hinted at).

The early churches (the "orthodox" non-gnostic one) took "the Word" quite literally and say that the Word (or Reason or Wisdom) that was inside of God in the beginning, he was able to give birth to in some way we can't understand. They regularly quote Ps 45:1 (LXX) "my heart has emitted a good word," as a description of the birth of the Word in the beginning as separate from the Father.

Historians call this "Word theology" and attribute this to the apologists, but I don't understand why. I've read most of the pre-Nicene writings and Nicene writings, and no one says anything against this Word theology and many of them espouse it. It was basically agreed to at Nicea, though it was changed in the debates afterward.

No real contradictions have arose in this thread yet, and I'm a bit disappointed about that.

Their New World Translation is not different enough from other Bibles to produce unique contradictions.

Ask them, however, to explain Matt 27:52 & 53. They have an article on that which one of them gave me. It's hilarious. They don't want to admit that passage says that people rose from the dead, when it obviously does.

Another one that makes them struggle is Zech 2:10-12, because it has Jehovah saying that Jehovah sent him, even in their translation.

I don't think the Witnesses are worse than any other sect. At least they encourage their members to live holy, and they are very brave in persecution. They're pretty close-minded, though, so that even when they're obviously wrong (like in the Matt 27 passage) they'll stick to their guns no matter how silly they look doing so.

On the other hand I had a great talk with one of their elders once, because he'd never heard the early church view of the Trinity (see my next post, which is to you). He got very open, and he let me talk to him for over half an hour, asking questions rather than just spouting their views to me. It's too bad that they're so closed, because if they would have let him, he and I could have been good friends.

Could you tell me where in the bible it is said that there is the Trinity?

You won't find anything as direct as you want, possibly. However...

1 Cor 8:6 says "Though there be many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ."

Matt 28:19 says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some people think that's a later addition, and it does seem strange there, especially considering that everyone baptizes just in the name of Jesus in the Book of Acts.

1 Jn 5:7 mentions the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, but there's no doubt that is a much, much later addition.

There's also a blessing in one of Paul's letters that mentions all three. I don't remember where it is, and I don't know what to search for to find it.

1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:1 are good ones, though. There's no direct mention or explanation of the Trinity doctrine, and verses like 1 Cor 15:27,28 all help round out the idea.

Tertullian wrote a treatise around AD 200 called "Against Praxeas" that goes into an explanation of the Trinity doctrine. His view is what you'll find in all the writings of the 2nd and early 3rd century; they're very consistent on the subject. Tertullian gets called "the father of the Trinity," because supposedly he was the first person to use the word. I think that's only true because he spoke Latin, though. Either Athenagoras or Theophilus used a Greek word that got translated "triad" about three decades earlier.

The different competing groups of Christians in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries all regularly changed their bibles to fit their theological views.

I don't think we know anything about what Christians in the 1st century did except what is in Acts.

I've heard about a couple things that people argue have been changed on purpose in the the books that are in the Bible, but this really isn't widespread. The gnostics simply used different books (with few exceptions), and the rather rare offshoots of "orthodox" Christianity from the 2nd and 3rd centuries used exactly the same Bible as the orthodox. Where the gnostics used the same books as the orthodox, their very figurative interpretation of those books made changing them unnecessary (except Marcion, who for some reason like Paul's letters and changed both them and the Gospel of Luke).

The Word was God" is simply inaccurate, as the absence of a definite article really does suggest that "a god" ought to be used in most situations.

Point taken. I did not not how to copy links back when I posted, but my 'knowledge' was only based in my 'faith' in the site I had read.

I don't want to be a stickler; I believe that one of the JW translations is 'the Word was like a god' or 'as a god' and I don't know if that changes things accuracy wise, but...

Say that 'the Word was God' and 'the Word was a God' are both acceptably inaccurate, I would still find that the JW's would not use the latter, as they do not recognize more than one God. That translation would be just as problematic as 'the Word was God'...which still leaves us with 'the Word was like a god'. What would the text say about that?

Further, I just looked at a copy of the Textus Receptus (the text on which the KJV and NKJV is based) and it has pros ton theon. "ton" is the accusative form of the definite article. In other words, it does say "with the God" not just "with God." Same with Jn 1:2.

I don't see this a problematic either way.

'With the God' is singular God, fine. If the word was with God, or with the god, it has not much bearing on whether the word was God, or like a God. The issue of 'the word was a god' would be even more problematic though. How could the word be 'a god' and yet, with, THE GOD?

I would still find that the JW's would not use the latter, as they do not recognize more than one God.

Well, they do, actually. They recognize one Almighty God and one Mighty God.

I didn't go look that up to verify that somewhere, but that's how they explained it to me. I've talked to them a lot, though it's been a long time since I talked to them.

'the Word was like a god'. What would the text say about that?

The Word was like God (not like a god) is very close to how the passage was explained to me in books and by my Greek teacher. "The Word has the character and nature of God" is the most common "exact" translation I heard offered.

Mind you, I am not a Greek scholar, but I can tell you that if you go read a Greek scholar's work, that is what it will say. "The Word has the character and nature of God" and the "the Word is like God" are pretty similar, in my opinion.

How could the word be 'a god' and yet, with, THE GOD?

I was wondering whether to mention this. This is commented on by a couple of early and quite orthodox Christians, Justin & Tertullian. Justin is considered a little extreme in his terminology, but I can tell you from reading that his general theology on the Word is pretty much the same as all the other 2nd century fathers.

Justin told Trypho, a Jew that he was arguing with, that there is one Unbegotten God and one begotten God. I don't think that's typical terminology for the 2nd century fathers, but none of them are around to ask. It fits their theology, though.

Tertullian, interestingly enough, since he is "the father of the Trinity," said "If you accuse us of believing in two Gods, of course we do. If you can do math, then you ought to be able to figure out that the Word was with God--one God--and the Word was God--two Gods."

He goes on to argue that there is no separation of divinity. The Word is made from the substance of God, which cannot be divided, so there is only one divinity, but there are two persons, so being accused of having two Gods is not unscriptural.

That's all in Against Praxeas ch. 13. In ch. 3 he argues that there is only one monarchy (lit., one rule). And he defends himself against the charge of monotheism in that way, just as he does in Against Marcion, book 1, ch. 3. However, here in ch. 13, he produces numerous passages that have 2 Gods in them, and even points out that the Scripture says "ye are gods," and says if the Scripture can refer to humans as gods if they are made sons of God through faith, then surely the only-begotten Son can be called God, too.

I don't know how pertinent any of that is to the JW's, but it seemed interesting in context of a discussion of John 1:1.

Well, they do, actually. They recognize one Almighty God and one Mighty God.

Surely you agree that the JW's are monotheistic in intention, if not in effect?

A Jehovah's Witness brochure entitled "Beliefs and Customs that God Hates" includes the Trinity, saying:

Is Jehovah a Trinity-three persons in one God? No! Jehovah, the Father, is "the only true God." (John 17:3; Mark 12:29) Jesus is His firstborn Son, and he is subject to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28) The holy spirit is not a person; it is God's active force.-Genesis 1:2; Acts 2:18.

I have never heard the 'almighty/mighty god' phrase but that clearly indicates two gods, even if one is subordinated to the other. I suppose here the issue of creator/creature comes in, and the JW's believe they have solved this by making Jesus at once a creature and the means by which God created everything else. Very problematic. If Jesus is a means of creation, is He a creator?

While I obviously subscribe to the belief that Jesus was a means of creation, as in 'through Him all things were made' this is no way makes Jesus lesser.

The Word was like God (not like a god) is very close to how the passage was explained to me in books and by my Greek teacher. "The Word has the character and nature of God" is the most common "exact" translation I heard offered.

Works for me. That only leaves the question; how much like God, or in what way?

I am sorry I ditched my JW literature, although I could likely find it again...but I am pretty sure they did say 'like a god' not 'like god'. It seems that ANY of these translations leads to vaguery and has room for interpretation. The point is that the end result of monotheism must be attained, and I am not sure that the JW's have effectively done that.

Tertullian, interestingly enough, since he is "the father of the Trinity," said "If you accuse us of believing in two Gods, of course we do. If you can do math, then you ought to be able to figure out that the Word was with God--one God--and the Word was God--two Gods.

Sure, but he missed the paradox of the Trinity. He began to understand the persons, but not the unity. The unity was indeed in substance, but, it seems Tertullian did 'divide' the substance, while not changing the substance.

Still, the word was with god' or 'the word was with the god' in itself does not change the number of gods.

That's all in Against Praxeas ch. 13. In ch. 3 he argues that there is only one monarchy (lit., one rule). And he defends himself against the charge of monotheism in that way, just as he does in Against Marcion, book 1, ch. 3. However, here in ch. 13, he produces numerous passages that have 2 Gods in them, and even points out that the Scripture says "ye are gods," and says if the Scripture can refer to humans as gods if they are made sons of God through faith, then surely the only-begotten Son can be called God, too.

It does sound pertinent to JW theology. I have heard them use the same argument that we are all sons of God, but only one is begotten, and He achieves His heirarchy more through His first-born capacity than through His unity with the godhead. Obviously though, being raised to godliness and being God are different in that creator/creature aspect.

I am not sure how the JW's use the word 'begotten' because this is supposed to be the delineator between what is 'made' and what exists.

Surely you agree that the JW's are monotheistic in intention, if not in effect?

Yes, I do agree.

I have never heard the 'almighty/mighty god' phrase but that clearly indicates two gods, even if one is subordinated to the other.

They address monotheism here. Their answer is to say, "Clearly, although Jesus is mighty in power and divine in nature, the Bible does not portray him as an object of worship." They have more on who Jesus is here.

He began to understand the persons, but not the unity. The unity was indeed in substance, but, it seems Tertullian did 'divide' the substance, while not changing the substance.

Well, keep in mind that I was speaking for Tertullian and only quoting part of what he said. Having read Tertullian a lot, I'm pretty sure he'd object (were he still alive) to being characterized this way. You might have to read him directly, and not go by my paraphrase.

Still, the word was with god' or 'the word was with the god' in itself does not change the number of gods.

Speaking for myself, not Tertullian, I have to ask, why not? If the Word was with God, and the Word has the character and nature of God, and is called God in several places, how is there not two Gods?

If it helps any, I personally believe that there is one God, the Father, but that God has a Son, who is divine by nature of being God's Son. God plus his Son equals two for me, just like it did for Justin, who described an unbegotten and a begotten God. That, to me, is how you can have Yahweh (or Jehovah if someone prefers) can be sending Yahweh in Zech 2:8-11.

Obviously though, being raised to godliness and being God are different in that creator/creature aspect.

yep.

I am not sure how the JW's use the word 'begotten' because this is supposed to be the delineator between what is 'made' and what exists.

Clearly, although Jesus is mighty in power and divine in nature, the Bible does not portray him as an object of worship."

I am pretty clear on that; they portray Jesus as mediator, leader, and model, but not God. It is still messy for me to figure in a divine nature.

Well, keep in mind that I was speaking for Tertullian and only quoting part of what he said. Having read Tertullian a lot, I'm pretty sure he'd object (were he still alive) to being characterized this way. You might have to read him directly, and not go by my paraphrase.

I have read Tertullian here and there, but I plan to do an in-depth at some point.

I think rather that I did not make myself clear, and it is not the easiest thing to express. For me, to say that a thing is indivisible, means that you can not have two gods, or allude to two gods. There are simply two persons in the same god. What I thought about Tertullian is that he had the idea right, but was not a purist in the sense that he 'divided' God into two seperate entities with the same substance. The way I see it, you are either perfect, or not. There are not two 'perfects' but one 'perfect' and Jesus was as absolutely perfect in substance although different in nature. He was another personification of perfect, not an alternative 'perfect' as in two gods, nor a lesser 'perfect' as in JW theology.

Speaking for myself, not Tertullian, I have to ask, why not? If the Word was with God, and the Word has the character and nature of God, and is called God in several places, how is there not two Gods?

I am being very simple here; the sentence itself, 'with God' or 'with the God' does not change the number of gods. It is only when you bring in the other sentences that there is a conflict.

But to answer your question; if someone has the character and nature of God, as I said above, they ARE God, and, as there is only one God allowed for in scripture, they must be the same One God. There can not be two gods, one must be lesser or one greater in degree of perfection. If not, they are the same, and the same two gods = one god. Indivisible.

If it helps any, I personally believe that there is one God, the Father, but that God has a Son, who is divine by nature of being God's Son. God plus his Son equals two for me, just like it did for Justin, who described an unbegotten and a begotten God. That, to me, is how you can have Yahweh (or Jehovah if someone prefers) can be sending Yahweh in Zech 2:8-11.

I understand, but I don't agree. There is no need for 'unbegotten'. Rather, you have missed something, namely, eternity. Jesus was there in the beginning, has no beginning or end. He did not come second to God, as a normal son must, but only in time did he come second as a human.

The word, the idea, the wisdom of God, was present with God forever. It was NEVER seperate from God, or a seperate God. It is always part of the same God. The one god can not be seperate from His Word, and the word can not exist without God. In only this sense Jesus was 'second' to God; in that He could not exist without God. God did not 'create' Jesus, but Jesus could not have existed without Him. God likewise could not be God without His word, but His existance brings about the word, and not vice versa.

I am sure that is extremely confusing. Unfortunately it makes good sense to me even if I can't express it well. :)

You lost me. What does this mean?

Begotten, or made?

'Made' is as in 'made' from something.'Begotten' is as in, uncreated.Therefore, no need for 'unbegotten'.

Jesus was not created or made. He sprang from the Father as your ideas spring from you, but entirely with perfection, as our ideas can not be. In other words, God could not 'make up' anything, but purely by thinking He made truth so real it was God/perfect. He put His truth into human form, rather than 'into' a human. Jesus is subordinate only in that sense, as in, He sprang from the father and not vice versa. But He is exactly as the Father, and therefore as equally to be worshipped.

The early church didn't mind switching between "begotten" and "created," so they didn't see begotten as meaning uncreated. They universally applied Prov 8:22 to Christ, and the universally read it as "The Lord created me the beginning of his works."

So begotten as in created was the "orthodox" doctrine of the church for almost 300 years until Arius showed up. Then they wanted to stop using the word "created" because of the way Arius applied it.

Until then, though, no one fretted over using created, because to them the Scriptures used it.